By Janet A Sesay
The Supreme Court of Sierra Leone has granted the Institute for Legal Research and Advocacy for Justice (ILRAJ) leave to participate in an ongoing constitutional matter as amicus curiae and interested party.
The matter was heard before a five-member panel of the Supreme Court, presided over by Chief Justice Komba Kamanda.
The application was moved by Counsel Basita Michael of Michael & Michael Solicitors on behalf of ILRAJ.
Filed by Notice of Motion dated September 30, 2026, the application sought leave for ILRAJ to participate in the proceedings for the limited purpose of assisting the Court with legal submissions on issues concerning constitutional interpretation.
In presenting the application, Counsel Michael thanked the Court for granting ILRAJ the opportunity to appear and be heard.
She submitted that admission as an amicus curiae was neither a right nor an entitlement, but a privilege accompanied by a responsibility to assist the Court independently and faithfully.
Counsel Michael said ILRAJ was conscious of the importance of the constitutional questions before the Court, particularly in view of the Supreme Court’s role as the custodian and interpreter of the Constitution.
She assured the Court that the organisation approached the proceedings with seriousness and respect for the Court’s constitutional mandate.
Counsel further informed the Court that ILRAJ was not funded by any of the litigating parties and had no pecuniary, financial or other interest in the parties or the outcome of the case.
She argued that the application was timely and would not prejudice any of the parties. Instead, she said, ILRAJ’s participation would provide the Court with additional legal perspectives on issues that had not been sufficiently addressed by the existing parties.
Responding to concerns raised by the Attorney-General regarding the specific assistance ILRAJ intended to provide, Counsel Michael said the organisation would assist the Court through a comparative examination of constitutional provisions.
She explained that ILRAJ intended to undertake a comparative analysis of different constitutional majority formulas and examine Section 108(2)(b) within the broader language and internal framework of the Constitution.
According to Counsel, these issues had not been extensively addressed in the submissions already before the Court.
She further identified the consideration of relevant authorities, judicial scrutiny and parliamentary proceedings surrounding the Speaker’s constitutional ruling as additional areas in which ILRAJ could possibly assist the Court.
Counsel argued that the parliamentary proceedings and the Speaker’s constitutional ruling raised distinctive constitutional issues which, in her view, had not been sufficiently examined by the existing parties.
The application also sought an order joining ILRAJ as an interested party pursuant to the relevant provisions of the High Court Rules, as applied by the Supreme Court Rules, and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.
ILRAJ further sought permission to file and serve a written brief or statement of case limited to the constitutional interpretation issues arising in the matter, together with a list and bundle of authorities, within a timeframe to be directed by the Court.
In his ruling, Chief Justice Komba Kamanda, having heard Counsel for the proposed amicus curiae and interested party, granted the application.
The Court accordingly allowed ILRAJ to participate in the proceedings as amicus curiae and interested party, subject to the scope and directions of the Court.